Review of Edmonds III Radcliffe G. Redef

8/16/2019 Review of Edmonds III Radcliffe G. Redef

1/4


2/4

The rst chapter of Part I immediately turns to the programme announced in the title. E. proposes

here his general denition of Orphism, and sets out the overall approach and methodology that follows

from this denition and that will be applied to particular phenomena in the subsequent parts of the work.

E.’s main polemical target is any kind of essentialist conception of Orphism; instead, he argues for a much

looser connection among diverse phenomena that can be ranged under the broad umbrella of Orphism.

Just as Leonid Zhmud' has recently done with respect to Pythagoreanism, E. suggests that the relationshipcan best be captured by the Wittgensteinean notion of family resemblance. Accordingly, E. o fers a semi-

formal, 'polythetic' denition according to which the primary characteristic trait of this family is being

'extra-ordinary' — one of E.’s signal terms — especially in terms of purity, sanctity, antiquity, strangeness or

perversion. I nd myself in full agreement with E.’s radically pluralistic approach. I also fully agree with him

that from the presence of certain traits in a document that we can range under Orphism, we cannot infer

that certain other traits should be present as well on the basis of the assumption that anything Orphic must

contain all those traits. I also fully agree that references to the gure of Orpheus and phenomena connected

to his name are always polemical — or I would perhaps rather say, they are hardly ever value-neutral. It

seems to me however that what should and what should not be included in the list of these non-essential

but characteristic traits, or 'valid cues', is still up for grabs. From a methodological point of view, it is not

unproblematic that E. starts with his denition, and then turns to the historical review of the evidence,

which is thus already moulded by the denition; E.’s nuanced and very informative discussions inevitably

focus on those traits that are included in his denition and tend to shadow those that are not. Starting with

a somewhat di ferent list of characteristic traits could have led to highlighting di ferent aspects of the same

historical evidence. One primary piece of contention is whether eschatological concerns should gure on

the list. E. staunchly maintains that they should not despite the evidence of Herodotus, the Olbia bone

tablets, the gold tablets or the Derveni papyrus and so forth. It seems to me that no harm would be done to

E.’s overall pluralistic, anti-essentialist picture if he would be more accommodating in this respect; it could

still be true that eschatology as such, and especially a well-dened eschatological doctrine, is far from being

a necessary trait of anything Orphic, or that it would be in any way exclusive to Orphism — just as 'extra-

ordinary strangeness', one of E.'s cues, is neither a necessary trait, nor exclusive to Orphism. More leniencetowards post-mortem concerns would spare E. from such strained claims that reincarnation got connected

with Orphism on account of the 'strangeness' of this idea (p. 85), and not in view of the perceived

eschatological interest in Orphism, whereas 'di ferentiated afterlife is ordinary’ (p. 88) and therefore cannot

be linked with Orphism (had it been so 'ordinary', Plato's Socrates would not have needed so much e fort to

argue for it on his last day). Similarly, there is of course no denying that the gold tablets put a great

emphasis on purity and a special relation to the divine, and as such could already belong to Orphism

according to E.'s denition on that account. Yet, all this does not prevent us from adding that they exhibit a

further 'cue' by being also eschatological in nature. Incidentally, E.'s very helpful corrective that the

importance of Demeter and Persephone in Orphic texts has been underestimated (p. 90) is a further

indication of the role of eschatological orientation.

Building on E.'s denition, the main bulk of the rst part is taken up by an outstandinglyinformative historical survey of the creation and shifting image of Orphism from the archaic age to the 20th

century. Once again, E.'s discussions, even of relatively well-known materials, contain a great deal of

novelty, much sophistication and ingenuity. One qualm: there seems to be some measure of unclarity about

the relationship between various presentations of the gure of Orpheus throughout ages, genres, and

systems of thought, on the one hand, and the creation of and shifts within the category of Orphism, on the

other. In fact, the major part of the chapter discusses the former question, but given that E.'s focus is

primarily on the second issue, the treatment of the former question is in some respects curiously selective.

For instance, E. comes to discuss the mythical biography of Orpheus only when he reaches the Middle Ages.

Thus Ovid and Vergil are referred to only in half a sentence in the chronological review, although their

popular and widely read presentations clearly had a more important role in the creation and crystallization

of the image of Orpheus. Indeed, classical references and allusions to Orpheus’ mythical biography in Greek

literary sources (e.g. Plato, Rep. 620a, Symp. 179d; Euripides, Alc. 367 f) or pictorial representations on

2


3/4

Apulian vases, are hardly mentioned. Moreover, in his masterly discussion of the gure of Orpheus in Neo-

Platonism, E. speaks about the 'creation of systematic Orphism' (p. 40). The applicability of this term is not

unproblematic, in so far as for the Neo-Platonics, as E. fully acknowledges, Orpheus does not have his own

distinctive '-ism', but is treated as one of the founding gures of the whole of Hellenic tradition of wisdom

and theology running through Pythagoras, Plato and their followers.

The primary objective of Part II is to show that, despite the widely accepted view, a specialimportance attached to written texts is not to be included in the list of 'valid cues' of the polythetic

denition of Orphism. E.'s discussion is brimming with insightful observations and legitimate and well-

argued criticism. It contains a highly interesting discussion of Orphic theogonies, with a particularly

suggestive proposal about the form of the Orphic Rhapsodies, comparing it with the Sibylline Oracles. It

seems to me however that, just as with respect to eschatology, E.'s position is unduly rigid towards the use of

written texts — a rigidity that in a way goes against the spirit of his commendable exible pluralism and

non-essentialism. E. convincingly shows that the role of written texts in Orphism has often been overstated,

and moreover, that these accounts, especially in older scholarship, have been motivated by preconceptions

and ‘outdated models’ of the function of sacred texts in religions. E. is also entirely right in pointing out that

the Orphic use of written texts must be understood within the wider cultural context of the rise of literacy

in the sixth and fth centuries, and more particularly with reference to the use of written treatises in

demonstrating one’s outstanding skills and expertise in the highly competitive spirit so characteristic of

Greek culture from the earliest times in any given eld. E. is also persuasive in showing how in the

intellectual atmosphere of the classical age, the exegetical and etymological bravados in the interpretation

of oracles and authoritative texts, the competing cosmological theories of the natural philosophers, the

professional rivalry of the medical authors, and the linguistic theories and rhetorical exercises of the

sophists could cross-fertilize each other, and that texts connected with Orphism and references to written

Orphic texts should be understood against the background of this vibrant and diverse intellectual life. It

seems to me however that E. tends to over-emphasise the pure demonstration of rhetorical, exegetical, and

argumentative skills to the expense of content. For, surely, not always, but often enough, such skills were

used not for mere epideictic, sophistic, eristic purposes, as mere displays of rhetorical virtuosity, but hadthe purpose of conveying a message and persuading the audience of the practical consequences of an

oracle, the ecacy of a treatment, or of the truth of a philosophical, cosmological or theological thesis, or a

cultic practice. It might be only a di ference in emphasis, but one that can lead to a considerably di ferent

assessment of the general nature and aims of texts like the Derveni papyrus.

Moreover, recognising the growing use of written texts across disciplines and discourses does not

mean that within the religious sphere actors broadly connected with Orphism could not be particularly

quick in adopting this medium in competing for their clientele. This could well explain why, as E. also

concedes, at least in the fth-century Athens people like Plato and Euripides could validly connect Orphism

with the use of books, and, moreover, their presentation could have an e fect on later perception of

Orphism. Once again, this would not make the use of written texts neither an essential feature, nor a

prerogative of Orphism, but would still allow that for some contemporaries the use of books was indeed a valid cue.

The last long section of Part II discusses the content of poems and mythological narratives

connected to Orpheus. E. applies his non-essentialist commitments in his analysis particularly successfully.

He shows convincingly that these narratives show a high degree of uidity and ability to integrate and

rearrange traditional mythical elements. Sometimes the rearrangement and the possible inclusion of

striking or outlandish elements might have served primarily rhetorical purposes, to catch attention and to

emphasize otherness. Yet this picture also leaves room for treating mythical narratives as a living language

that is able to express philosophical or theological contents by rearrangement, omission, and inclusion.

Among other important observations, E. provides in this chapter powerful arguments in order to strike a

more balanced picture of the role of narratives about Dionysus, Demeter, the Great Mother, and

Persephone, as well as ‘poems for the sacred rites’, instead of an exclusive focus on theo-cosmogonies that

have been prioritized by scholarly discussions.

3


4/4

Part III focuses on such texts that have been seen as central for Orphic eschatological doctrines. E.

revisits here the vexed question of the so-called Orphic anthropogony according to which humankind is

born from the ashes of the Titans who were struck by Zeus' thunderbolt as a punishment for having

dismembered and devoured the infant Dionysus. By a meticulous analysis of the sources, E. demonstrates

convincingly that although various elements of this narrative appear in various texts of di ferent dates,

there is no single source that would contain this particular conjunction of elements together; E. plausiblyand cautiously concludes that rather than being the backbone of Orphic beliefs about the nature of human

beings, and their fate, and possibility of salvation, it is a construction of modern scholarship. E. shows, to

my mind successfully, that Olympiodorus, whose testimony includes most, although not all, of the relevant

elements, is not preserving an archaic version, but rather recombines and invents for the purposes of his

own discussion of Socrates’ prohibition of suicide in the Phaedo. Moreover, we don't need to rely on this

conjunction of narrative elements to ascribe the role of liberator to Dionysus or to speak about

Persephone's ancient grief. According to E., Persephone’s rapt is su cient to explain the retribution

mankind has to pay in order to placate her. Building on his previously published work, but giving due

attention to objections and counter-arguments raised by Bernabé and other scholars, E. provides here new

arguments and a denitive statement of his position — a worthy coda to this splendid book.

E.'s monograph is a comprehensive, powerful, superbly erudite treatment of a particularly di cult

and contentious topic. It is a genuine tour de force at the highest level scholarship, inventiveness, and

interpretative acuity. An absolute must for anyone interested in any aspect of Greek religion.

Gábor Betegh

Cambridge

4

Review of Edmonds III Radcliffe G. Redef

Documents

Transcript of Review of Edmonds III Radcliffe G. Redef